Feminism & the Oppression Olympics

According to mainstream accounts, the current disarray of the Women’s March movement began almost at the moment of its inception. A black feminist and a brown feminist spoke disrespectfully to a Jewish feminist, and through that original sin the seeds of the movement’s subsequent troubles were sown.

The Jewish victim was Vanessa Wruble, and the offense occurred as “a diverse group of women” assembled to plan what would eventually become the March of the Pussy Hats, a substantial feminist response to the election of Donald Trump:

Vanessa Wruble, a Brooklyn-based activist, said she told the group that her Jewish heritage inspired her to try to help repair the world. But she said the conversation took a turn when Tamika Mallory, a black gun control activist, and Carmen Perez, a Latina criminal justice reform activist, replied that Jews needed to confront their own role in racism.

To add injury to insult, Mallory and Perez, upon assuming leadership of the Women’s March, invited the Palestinian feminist Linda Sarsour to join their ranks. As a statement of feminism’s new-found commitment to racial diversity, the choice seemed ideal: a black woman and a Chicana woman had brought a brownish Arab woman into the leadership of an important feminist project.

But from a Jewish perspective, Jews had been excluded from the movement’s leadership, even though Jewish financial backers were funding it, and a prominent Muslim opponent of Israel had been smuggled in. Jewish women could pay bills and make coffee for the betterment of feminism, but they risked losing the power to shape the character of the feminist Women’s March. What had begun as a liberal effort to include a few colored women in prominent positions had ended with a judenrein leadership. Each of the three principal March leaders is, moreover, hostile to Zionism, and each has a history of irritating Jews.

Vanessa Wruble was eventually, she claims, excluded from the Women’s March movement. Troubled and pained by the intolerance she had experienced, notably at the hands of Tamika Mallory, she helped found a rival organization, March On, which devotes much of its energy to denouncing anti-Semitism and defending Israel. The fractured movement’s future now seems uncertain, as the New York Times reports: “Charges of anti-Semitism are now roiling the movement and overshadowing plans for more marches next month.”

The charges of anti-Semitism that are roiling and overshadowing the movement come, of course, from numerous Jewish voices in newspapers and prominent online news sources, all speaking at roughly the same time, as though their outrage had been orchestrated. The Women’s March movement would not have been overshadowed by Jewish complaints if Jews did not have the media power to make their concerns an issue of public discussion. If Jews did not dominate mainstream media, no one but Vanessa Wruble’s nearest and dearest would have learned of her pain two years ago. The chances are good that the diverse (but gentile) leaders of the Women’s March movement are now acutely aware of that fact.

For anyone who dislikes feminism, this story is entertaining. Its outcome will also be illuminating. Do Jews still retain the power, within a racially diverse movement that privileges a group history of victimization, to keep their victim status co-equal with the status of other victim groups?

For a black activist like Tamika Mallory, who admires Louis Farrakhan, the answer is obvious. Jews have all the wealth, she once said. She will not cheerfully allow rich Jewish feminists to claim equality in oppression with black and brown feminists. If Tamika had her way, Jewish women would dwindle down to the level of white women, perhaps even lower.

The old feminism that arose in the 1970s had no difficulty identifying enemies. Its attention was largely focused on womyn as a single group, and it maintained group cohesion by stigmatizing men as the cause of women’s discontents. That its leadership was mostly Jewish seemed immaterial, since feminism’s ingroup was clearly defined as female and the other half of humanity was its enemy. A Jewish woman can speak for feminism just as convincingly as an Episcopalian woman, inasmuch as both are equally female. The outward face of old-school feminism was (((white))), and few gentile feminists found that disturbing.

The world for feminists was simple then. Feminist attacks on men did not require that the attacker announce her position on the plight of transvestites or the Palestinian Question or the morality of national borders. Those were not distinctively women’s issues, so a feminist’s thoughts about them were unimportant. She could keep them to herself.

The old structure of feminism could accommodate some complexity. For example, white men are especially bad and black men are less bad. Feminism cannot, however, easily accommodate a multiplicity of victim groups, each wedded to different and sometimes competing accounts of their group’s victimization.

To take the clearest example, a Palestinian feminist cannot reasonably be asked to ignore the fact that Zionism, and the Jewish ethnostate it created, is the source of her particular ethnic oppression. About half of Linda Sarsour’s Wikipedia article is devoted to charges launched against her by Zionists, since she takes seriously her own group’s dispossession and believes it should be added to feminism’s growing list of causes. Most Jewish feminists disagree, and especially emotional Jews call her a nazi, which is tantamount to a declaration that she does not deserve to live.

The position of white women within the new feminism, now littered with dozens of identity groups, is steadily declining. Each additional group added to feminism’s list of favored victim groups comes at their expense. A white woman is less oppressed than a black man. A white woman is less oppressed than a homosexual man or an illegal Mexican immigrant.

A white woman is also less oppressed than a white man who has convinced himself than his inner sex is really female. A white woman’s only claim to power within the new feminism is that she is not a man, and even that can now be taken from her. Her pussyhat becomes divisive and contentious, because in our Kali Yuga some women lack pussies.

Furthermore, a white feminist woman, just like a white man, is riddled with phobias and bigotries, and one of her new moral tasks is to self-police her mind to ensure that her “racism” and various other hatreds are properly subdued. Just like white men, she must heed the instructions of non-white women, who are best positioned to alert her to her flaws and to any microaggressions that are disturbing them.

There is, nevertheless, an actual white woman near the top of the Women’s March. Her name is Mari Lynn Foulger, though she calls herself Bob Bland. She was present at the movement’s founding meeting, and she is occasionally listed among its leaders.

Unlike most feminists, Bob Bland seems likeable, and she has, surprisingly, some sensible opinions. She opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a stunningly bad trade deal, and she shares Donald Trump’s opposition to neo-liberalism’s “endless globalism.” She could easily have been a Trump voter: “I didn’t disagree with him about any of that at all.”

In a Jewish podcast, Bob Bland claimed that “there’s no oppression Olympics” within the new feminism. She also, with the illogic that characterizes many feminists, acknowledged her own white guilt: “I am the oppressor of all the people we’re talking about right now, because I’m white, I’m Christian.”

If your very existence makes you an oppressor, then you must be the enemy of any movement that officially combats oppression, and the victims of your oppression must be placed somewhere far above you as sources of moral concern. Their distinctive issues must be much more important than your distinctive issues, because you are oppressing them and they are not oppressing you. Which group gets placed at the top of feminism’s new hierarchy may be up for debate, but there can be no doubt about which group is at the bottom.

There clearly is a feminist Oppression Olympics, but within this competition white women are not entitled to participate. Although “intersectional feminism” has nuances and a complex vocabulary with which to express them, in practice it means that the more recognized victim identities a woman can pack into her personal identity, the more powerful she becomes within a movement that, despite all claims to the contrary, privileges victimhood. Within feminism a non-Jewish white woman is the least endowed with victim identities, so she is ineligible for the Oppression Olympics. She can watch the other contenders and perhaps pick a favorite, but the most she can hope for is the right to cheer her preferred victim athletes from the sidelines.

Bob Bland is the ideal white woman for the new post-feminist feminism, which now publicly calls white racial nationalism, rather than men, its primary enemy. She freely acknowledges her racial guilt and is eager to receive enlightenment from the non-white women around her. She is grateful that Tamika Mallory has helped her to overcome some of the errors that her whiteness once led her into. She is outraged at the suggestion that a black woman could be called a “racist,” though she believes that her own race is congenitally guilty of that offense. She did not complain when Linda Sarsour announced that only colored women should be recruited as the March movement’s organizers, which is to say that neither Jews nor white gentiles were wanted. Her role in feminism is to serve non-white women and to receive correction from them: “We need to let people of color lead. We need to listen to them. We need to trust them.”

The original sin of Tamika Mallory, back in 2016, was to assume that she could speak to a Jewish feminist as she would speak to a docile white feminist. She wanted to educate Vanessa Wruble about the offenses of her particular segment of whiteness, as she had educated other white women. It was, for example, unobjectionable when Mallory told white feminists that their whiteness made them untrustworthy. Within an environment where anti-whiteness is the norm, it was reasonable for her to expect that she could speak similarly to a Jewish feminist.

Needless to say, that was a serious mistake, which could end up wrecking her budding career as a professional activist. Tamika Mallory and her supporters should now be crossing their fingers and hoping that Jewish power is in decline.

13 Comments

This is a good snapshot of a passing controversy, and touches on many issues that need to be explored in perspective.

The whole notion of Feminism is something that is meaningless outside the world of Western, White women. There is no natural solidarity amongst all primate females, or all female mammals or vertebrates. It’s a preposterous notion that only an intelligent, articulate, self-deceiving person could attempt to believe.

However, the toxin of “intersectionalism” got injected into “Third Wave” Feminism, so that now a feminist effectively is not expected to be attuned to women’s interests per se; rather she is supposed to view such interests as merely one of many causes in the world, particularly those involving pandering to nonwhites, weirdoes, and illegals. (So why is it called Feminism? Well because that’s an old brand, and it’s camouflage.)

The “Jewish” thing is mainly anger by POCs who were recruited and coddled into the movement by Jewish women who told them that feminism was for them, and all poor and Third World people; when really it never was. Once again the POCs sense they have been used, and they react accordingly.

Wrong. Women have very strong in-group preferences. https://www.apa.org/monitor/dec04/women.aspx Feminism depends on female cognitive biases in fact…Without women esteeming themselves and other women so highly, the entire con never gets going. Consider that it also spins out of control once the feedback loop of gynocentric propaganda runs amok, constantly fluffing women throughout their education and the media.

I meet young women today who believe they can be as tough as men – and why not? They’ve been told they’re powerful and can do anything their whole lives. And every bit of entertainment they’ve seen has more often than not presented either an adult female or female child as the hero. Or at least the moral arbiter, while even the male hero is presented as deeply flawed, even as he saves everyone…Lol. And then of course there are the nonstop depictions of 5’6″ women beating up multiple professional soldiers or cops.

An interesting exception to this is Caroline, a 21yo friendgirl of mine, who craves the protection of a male. You see, she was violently raped by a stranger when she was 12, the guy beat the daylights out of her too. She said outright to me, “Most girls my age literally have no idea how vulnerable they are to the average man, if he wanted to…”. She marvels at the risks her female friends take, and also the brutishness they are exposed to in the college scene. But she’s the exception. She also laughs at how women are depicted in the media as tough. I’ve been in several life threatening situations in my life with women along side, and they were useless. One actually froze like a statue. The rest cowered and awaited my protection. Demanded it in one case…

Feminism rests on a female propensity to take their fanciful ideas far too seriously…The only reset will come from a significant material change in living standards in the West, and that is inevitable, you can bet feminism will become a distant memory quickly once protection and provisioning are’t so readily available from the govt . But our current, biased society hands out cash and prizes to women like they can’t do so fast enough, so why wouldn’t women be on a supremacist kick? Interesting fact though, the only women who seem to be bothered by me carrying a gun are over 35. Younger women all seem to love it and want to go shooting. So there are some things fighting against the programming, but still. I attribute that to their being raised in a low-trust society in which they always feel more vulnerable than women of say 40 years ago living in suburbia.

My point? Supremacism takes many forms, and feminism is female supremacism for sure.

In light of the Metoo “movement” in which many or even most of the sexual abusers were Jewish men, you would think the women’s movement would address this point. After all, how can we address sexual abuse if it’s not talked about. I think I heard that somewhere before.

Regarding Tamika Mallory and Carmen Perez’s assertion that Jews needed to confront their own role in racism, this might also need further exploration. The other day I was watching Fox News and apparently a black had claimed that Jews were leaders in the slave industry. Someone then said that she(?) was an admirer of Louis Farrakhan and she(?) was immediately branded an anti-Semite. In their minds this may have been “proof” that Jews were not leaders of slavery.. All the Fox people agreed that Jews were not leaders in the slave industry, by either saying nothing or agreeing that anyone that is an admirer of Louis Farrakhan must be an anti-Semite, which I think probably proves that she(?) is a liar and maybe even proves that Jews were not only not leaders in the slave industry, but had nothing to do with it, maybe they didn’t even know about it. I don’t remember who the people were they were talking about. Maybe it was even Tamika Mallory. But, it was interesting how they all either voiced agreement or said nothing when the one commentator essentially said Jews were not leaders in the slave industry (and I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess they think Jews had nothing to do with slavery whatsoever), meaning it was white Christians that ran the whole thing.

The problem is Dr. Tony Martin (who happens to be black), a historian with great knowledge of slavery wrote a book demonstrating Jews leading role in slavery and he partially relied upon the work of a Jewish historian to demonstrate this. Well, perhaps not surprisingly he was immediately branded an anti-Semite and he was given the Kevin MacDonald and David Irving treatment in his own university. His life was made miserable and he was accused of all sorts of things, including making physical threats to others. So, historian David Irving invited him to a IHR conference and he made a very interesting speech about the Jews leading role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. I’m guessing FOX would never invite Tamika Mallory or anyone else onto their program to explain the Jews leading role in slavery.

You can say that whites were involved in the slave trade, and therefore should feel guilty. You cannot say that Jews were involved in the slave trade, and therefore should feel guilty. If you speak the latter, you are guilty of anti-Semitism, which is a terrible thought-crime.

I agree. The fact that you can’t say anything negative about Jews, even if what you’re saying is true, is a big problem. It’s a way of upholding the lies. Just being accused of “anti-Semitism” makes you less moral than a murderer in the eyes of many. I won’t go into it here but I jest experienced that and my accuser attempted to publicly slander me.

I love it when Jews get a taste of their own medicine. They parade about lecturing Whites and behaving as self-righteous as one could imagine. Yet like Blacks in America, they never quite face their own sins, nor the wake of societal ruin and destruction they’ve caused by their anti-White policies and propaganda. When their own hypocrisy is called out or when their Jewish-Marxist agenda is exposed for what it is, they act shocked and are surprised that anyone would dare to challenge them. True self-reflection and repentance is not in their nature no matter how ‘religious’ they claim to be.

“Vanessa Wruble, a Brooklyn-based activist, said she told the group that her Jewish heritage inspired her to try to help repair the world” – That right there is a major part of the problem. Jews are out to “repair the world” which really amounts to them interfering and destroying from within their host countries. Their version of ‘repairing’ the world is nothing less than the ruin of the West or any nation foolish enough to harbor these neurotic and divisive people.

Good article. Irmin Vinson has been one of my favorite writers on this site since “A Giraffe Dies in Denmark.”

The left’s racial ideology has three main rules:
1) Every problem is caused by whites.
2) Everything that whites do is subject to criticism, except for left-wing activism.
3) Everything non-whites do is exempt from criticism, except for right-wing activism.

The fine print is trickier, though, especially when you’re combining different identities. White women are in a precarious position in the minority coalition, welcomed generally by ejected for the smallest slights. Recently, white gays, who were at one point one of the most visible components of that coalition, seem to be getting put in a similar place as white women. The eventual disintegration of the left under the weight of its contradicting minority interests, which many on the right have expected for years, seems to be coming faster than we could have expected. I wonder if it will play a major role in the 2020 election season.

Thank you for this article. The Jew/Brown split has been particularly pronounced over the past few months. In addition to the charges of antisemitism within the Women’s march, we have seen Marc Lamont Hill get fired from CNN for pro-Palestinian comments, and there was a recent scandal involving Alice Walker promoting David Icke, who is labeled an anti-semitic author.

We need to widen the wedge between Jews and Browns, who have served as their battering ram for decades. This is a very fertile ground for metapolitics over the next few years.

The Eureka Women’s March in northern California was recently cancelled because it lacked colored organizers, and its white organizers feared too many white women would show up. The location of the cancelled march is seventy-five percent white, and it has a black population of about one percent, which suggests strongly that it is a nice place to live.

If every single woman in the vicinity had showed up for this Women’s March, the resulting march would nevertheless be deemed a failure, because far too many of the faces in the crowd would be white.

I wish I had come across this story before I sent off “Oppression Olympics,” because it beautifully encapsulates diversity-feminism’s problems.

The organizers of this Women’s March could bus in blacks and dark-skinned Hispanics (the darker the better) from elsewhere to make photos of the event look properly diverse, but any whites and Jews who tried to climb on the bus would be unwelcome. The former are not diverse, and the latter do no look sufficiently diverse.

And if the organizers told all the black women climbing on this diversity-bus that they were obliged to condemn Louis Farrakhan, which Jews are trying to make an admission requirement for feminism, a large number of them would prefer to stay at home.

I feel like leaning back and watching how bad Karma comes into action. A world that is not even based on hypothetical good will cannot exist, and that mingled with the presumptuous Jewish tikkun olam can only lead to a self-destructive cycle of negative, wasteful and alienating events.